User talk:Opclarnem

Edits are useful[edit]

I was repairing reverted edits. These edits were all right. Reverting these edits is causing damage to the encyclopedia. Opclarnem (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think that, then the thing to do is to get your original account unblocked, so that you can make the edits that you regard as useful, without seeing them all reverted. As you know, evading your block is not going to enable you to restore your edits, as they will just be reverted again. JBW (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it has been used to evade blocks on one or more other accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to the bottom of the talk page of your original account, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JBW (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opclarnem, the only one causing damage to the project is you, and that's not just because you are socking, but also because it became clear years ago already that many of your edits were low quality. Plus, you don't even to the bare minimum required for players in this collaborative game, like explaining your edits or, ahem, verifying them. In other words, as long as you keep editing the way you're editing, you're of no use. Waardeloos. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you understand that I had to block User talk:Jurkste as well. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user you're talking about has been blocked because of accusations of non-consensus editing, not because of low quality edits. Observing these edits I think these accusations are exaggerated, and the way this user has been treated is out of all proportion.

The edits I made were just repairing categorization edits in most cases, because I think these edits are good edits and shouldn't be reverted, and many times I mentioned "cat(egorization)" in the edit summary. Opclarnem (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Opclarnem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The edits I made were just repairing categorization edits in most cases, because I think these edits are good edits and shouldn't be reverted, and many times I mentioned "cat(egorization)" in the edit summary. Opclarnem (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

None of this is relevant. You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Yamla (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note you appear to be one step away from a ban under WP:3X. That would convert the block on your original account, which notes "indefinite does not mean infinite", into a ban under WP:CBAN. You should consider this is your absolute final chance to take a different approach with Wikipedia. Step away from the project for at least six months. Zero edits. Zero, absolutely zero, not one more edit from you on any account, absolutely zero. Then apply under WP:SO. You'll need to address your deliberate and malicious violation of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE and you'll need to convince us that your edits were inappropriate and were not, as you are currently claiming, "just repairing categorization edits" or "good edits and shouldn't be reverted". Instead, you'd need to convince us you understand your edits were totally inappropriate and should indeed have been reverted. Take as much time as you need, six months is the minimum bar here but if you need a year or five years or a decade, take that time. But again, no more edits. Zero. Not until you've been away for at least six months and are then requesting your block be lifted on your original account. I cannot emphasize this enough... zero edits until then. --Yamla (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]